Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That doesn't look melted at all. It looks like hundreds of tons of debris might have fallen on it though.
Answer the question Yes or No? I believe that these attacks were not a Bush lead Conspiracy and the buildings were not rigged. What is your answer?
who knows ,they could well of had means and technology more advanced than the average demolition company..wireless detonation would be completely plausible as well ..it is just cost restrictive for demolition companiesthe evidence says controled demolition
How did a demolition team rig the building to fall and no one saw them do it?
really simple, less than a minute each, little duct tape remote control detonators.
7 was empty all day
really simple, less than a minute each, little duct tape remote control detonators.
How big were the charges? How many did they need?
who knows
Not the idiotic conspiracy morons.
wireless detonation would be completely plausible as well
I'm not interested in the imagainary detonators, I'm interested in the tonnage of the imaginary explosives.
WTC 7 Now A Proven Case Of Controlled Demolition - PaulCraigRoberts.org
It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC, among others but best to research on your own.
What I find surprising is that so many people to this day do not know anything about WTC building 7. "Oh , there was another building?" they ask surprised.
"Twoofers" seem to develop a following among the gullible.Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Retired U.S. Air Force command fighter pilot. Former instructor; U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program. As an Air Force weapons effects expert was responsible for wartime tasking of most appropriate aircraft/munition for target destruction to include steel and concrete superstructures. Former aeronautical structures flight test engineer with McDonnell Douglas, working on advanced DC-9 autopilot systems and DC-10 flight envelope expansion stress and flutter analysis. Tactical aircraft flown: General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber, McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, General Dynamics / Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet, Boeing B-1 Bomber, MiG-29 (Russian fighter), and Su-22 (Russian fighter/bomber). 3,000+ fighter hours. Combat time over Iraq. 20-year Air Force career.
- Statement to this website 3/25/07: "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back..
- U.S. Military Officers for 9 11 Truth
That system was developed by the space aliens.
The Joooooos?So, am I understanding that you both want to cite the NIST as an authoritative source, and then want to say they got it wrong?
nist was selected by the government who do you think is the authoritative source?
That system was developed by the space aliens.
No, it hasn't. Has it ever occurred to you that the loons living on the fringes of a reality based worldview are the ones floating these goofy conspiracy theories.That system was developed by the space aliens.
Has it ever occurred to you that your the one believing in conspiracies!
who knows ,they could well of had means and technology more advanced than the average demolition company..wireless detonation would be completely plausible as well ..it is just cost restrictive for demolition companiesHow did a demolition team rig the building to fall and no one saw them do it?
really simple, less than a minute each, little duct tape remote control detonators.
7 was empty all day
really simple, less than a minute each, little duct tape remote control detonators.
How big were the charges? How many did they need?
who knows
Not the idiotic conspiracy morons.
wireless detonation would be completely plausible as well
I'm not interested in the imagainary detonators, I'm interested in the tonnage of the imaginary explosives.
So basically, you believe that the demolitions that were clearly used to bring down WTC 7 is "imaginary".
Yet, you certainly believe the imaginary reason that was given, saying that fire was the reason why the tower collapsed.
who knows ,they could well of had means and technology more advanced than the average demolition company..wireless detonation would be completely plausible as well ..it is just cost restrictive for demolition companiesHow did a demolition team rig the building to fall and no one saw them do it?
really simple, less than a minute each, little duct tape remote control detonators.
7 was empty all day
really simple, less than a minute each, little duct tape remote control detonators.
How big were the charges? How many did they need?
who knows
Not the idiotic conspiracy morons.
wireless detonation would be completely plausible as well
I'm not interested in the imagainary detonators, I'm interested in the tonnage of the imaginary explosives.
So basically, you believe that the demolitions that were clearly used to bring down WTC 7 is "imaginary".
Yet, you certainly believe the imaginary reason that was given, saying that fire was the reason why the tower collapsed.
oven Case Of Controlled Demolition - PaulCraigRoberts.org[/URL]
who knows ,they could well of had means and technology more advanced than the average demolition company..wireless detonation would be completely plausible as well ..it is just cost restrictive for demolition companiesHow did a demolition team rig the building to fall and no one saw them do it?
really simple, less than a minute each, little duct tape remote control detonators.
7 was empty all day
really simple, less than a minute each, little duct tape remote control detonators.
How big were the charges? How many did they need?
who knows
Not the idiotic conspiracy morons.
wireless detonation would be completely plausible as well
I'm not interested in the imagainary detonators, I'm interested in the tonnage of the imaginary explosives.
So basically, you believe that the demolitions that were clearly used to bring down WTC 7 is "imaginary".
Yet, you certainly believe the imaginary reason that was given, saying that fire was the reason why the tower collapsed.
ad ho·mi·nemwho knows ,they could well of had means and technology more advanced than the average demolition company..wireless detonation would be completely plausible as well ..it is just cost restrictive for demolition companiesreally simple, less than a minute each, little duct tape remote control detonators.
7 was empty all day
really simple, less than a minute each, little duct tape remote control detonators.
How big were the charges? How many did they need?
who knows
Not the idiotic conspiracy morons.
wireless detonation would be completely plausible as well
I'm not interested in the imagainary detonators, I'm interested in the tonnage of the imaginary explosives.
So basically, you believe that the demolitions that were clearly used to bring down WTC 7 is "imaginary".
Yet, you certainly believe the imaginary reason that was given, saying that fire was the reason why the tower collapsed.
Using Paul Craig Roberts as a source just shows you're an even bigger idiot than I first thought.
Congrats! That isn't an easy thing to do.
molten metal evidence?this is a weak attempt to explain molten metal seen in only one portion the building..does nothing to address the majority of molten metal evidenceAir France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was its contents, like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt. Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately, they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorists fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.it's what they do?What was the motive for the all powerful conspiracy to secretly sabotage this building?
none of the conspiracy makes any rational sense
More evidence that normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester.
Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel
molten metal evidence?
where? who has this evidence? Alex Jones?
the few metal samples are in the control of government..through FOA request much of the photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts are available to all..and despite the fact ..fema documented evidence of molten metal and multiple individuals involved with the event and its aftermath gave evidence of both explosions and molten steel...NIST bizarrely claims..no one reported molten steel and no evidence exist..just as NIST does with explosive calming none were heard none were recorded...and refusing to discuss it furthermolten metal evidence?this is a weak attempt to explain molten metal seen in only one portion the building..does nothing to address the majority of molten metal evidenceAir France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was its contents, like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt. Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately, they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorists fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.it's what they do?What was the motive for the all powerful conspiracy to secretly sabotage this building?
none of the conspiracy makes any rational sense
More evidence that normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester.
Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel
where? who has this evidence? Alex Jones?
You twoofers never had a debate to begin with. Your goofy conspiracy theories are a laughable joke.So we have the strawman of aliens invoked by the one debwunker in response to wireless detonation technology..and an ad hominem
attack on Paul Craig Roberts instead of the information he provided...and lastly we have a "so what if it was"..it seems clear to me the debwunkers have lost the debate in epic fashion
